“Section 10(35)”

RAMESH PURSHOTTAM MODI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarramesh Purshottam Ito Circle 22(1) Modi Income Tax 303, Modi House, Linking Vs. Department, Road, Khar West, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400 052 Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Parel, Mumbai 0 400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aahpm2793F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashwani Kumar A/W Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

fictitious short term capital loss of Rs. 44,24,42,395/- and argued that the final addition, based on revocation of exemption under section 10(35), travelled beyond the recorded reasons. It was also contended that only about 12 percent of units were sold, that the dividend and investment transactions ... appreciate that the reason for reopening (i.e., alleged fictitious losses) and the basis of the final addition (i.e., disallowance of dividend exemption under section 10(35)) are entirely unrelated and independent issues. As a result, the reassessment suffers from a jurisdictional defect, and the addition made and upheld on grounds

LICHFL FUND ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 23(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Income-tax Act, 1961. The\nassessee also claimed exemption in respect of dividend income\nreceived from units of mutual funds under section 10(35) of the\nAct.\n3. The cases were selected for scrutiny and notices under\nsection 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued. During ... ndetails of investments made in portfolio companies, nature of\nincome earned therefrom and the basis for claiming exemption\nunder section 10(23FB) and section 10(35) of the Act. It was\nexplained that the interest income was earned on Optionally Fully\nConvertible Debentures and other instruments issued by portfolio\ncompanies

LICHFL FUND ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 23(2)(1), MUMBAI

Income-tax Act, 1961. The\nassessee also claimed exemption in respect of dividend income received from units of mutual funds under section 10(35) of the\nAct.\n3. The cases were selected for scrutiny and notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued. During ... ndetails of investments made in portfolio companies, nature of\nincome earned therefrom and the basis for claiming exemption\nunder section 10(23FB) and section 10(35) of the Act. It was\nexplained that the interest income was earned on Optionally Fully\nConvertible Debentures and other instruments issued by portfolio\ncompanies

LICHFL FUND ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 23(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Income-tax Act, 1961. The\nassessee also claimed exemption in respect of dividend income\nreceived from units of mutual funds under section 10(35) of the\nAct.\n3. The cases were selected for scrutiny and notices under\nsection 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued. During ... ndetails of investments made in portfolio companies, nature of\nincome earned therefrom and the basis for claiming exemption\nunder section 10(23FB) and section 10(35) of the Act. It was\nexplained that the interest income was earned on Optionally Fully\nConvertible Debentures and other instruments issued by portfolio\ncompanies

INDU MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE 19(1), MUMBAI, DCIT-CPC, MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Indu Maheshwari Circle 19(1), Mumbai Shilpam, 20-A, Janpath Shyam Dcit-Cpc Nagar, Jaipur- 302019 Vs. Rajasthan (Pan: Abopm6419N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Atharv Mundra, Ca Revenue : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Addl/Jcit (A)-2, Bengaluru, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- 25/1071060919(1), Dated 10.12.2024 Passed Against The Intimation Issued By Centralized Processing Center, By Dcit, Bengaluru (Cpc), U/S. 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 13.03.2019 For Ay 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 34,34,698/- Made By Ld. Ao Treating As Dividend U/S. 10 (34) Of It Act. However Appellant Earned Income From Mutual Fund Which Is Exempt U/S. 10(35) Of It Act. 2. In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The 2 Indu Maheshwari Ay 2017-18 Addition Of Rs. 3,79,894/- Made By Ld. Ao For Not Allowing Of Loss Of Capital Gain.

dividend income earned thereon is undisputed and verifiable from the material on record. Claim of the assessee squarely falls within the provisions of Section 10(35) which deals with dividend income from mutual funds, exempting it from taxability under the Act. According to the ld. Counsel, provisions of Section 115BBDA ... 10 lakhs under section 10(34). The assessee has claimed to have earned dividend income from mutual funds, which are exempt under section 10(35). Evidence to this effect was also filed by way of statement of Mutual Fund. The assessee had clearly demonstrated the inapplicability of section 115BBDA 10

KAE CAPITAL FUND ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 25(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailkae Capital Fund, 74Ab, Jolly Maker Chambers Ii, Vinay Shah Marg, Mumbai – 400021 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabtk9875E V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward – 25(1)(1)., ……………… Respondent Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai

Learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Centralised Processing Centre ('CPC") 2 in disallowing the exemption under section 10(35) of the Act as in Order passed under section 154 of the Act, and erred in directing the assessing officer ('AO") to verify the condition for claiming ... reasonable opportunity to the Appellant, thereby warranting its recall due to the procedural infirmity. 2. Ground No.2: Non-grant of exemption under section 10(35) of the Act on dividend income from mutual fund units due to misinterpretation of the provisions of the Act 2.1. On the facts

GAYATRI ANKIT CHONA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(1)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal stands allowed for statistical\npurposes

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH,\nMUMBAI\nBEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C. V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT\n&\nSHRI

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BKC, MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

erred in upholding the Assessing Officer's ('AO") order denying the exemption on the Income from units under section 10(35) of the Act. 5. The Id. CIT(A) erred in not reversing the AO's order inasmuch as he has denied a part of the Appellant's claim ... erred in upholding the Assessing Officer's ('AO") order denying the exemption on the Income from units under section 10(35) of the Act. 5. The Id. CIT(A) erred in not reversing the AO's order inasmuch as he has denied a part of the Appellant's claim

TATA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI NARENDRA

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

erred in upholding the Assessing Officer's ('AO") order denying the exemption on the Income from units under section 10(35) of the Act. 5. The Id. CIT(A) erred in not reversing the AO's order inasmuch as he has denied a part of the Appellant's claim ... erred in upholding the Assessing Officer's ('AO") order denying the exemption on the Income from units under section 10(35) of the Act. 5. The Id. CIT(A) erred in not reversing the AO's order inasmuch as he has denied a part of the Appellant's claim

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND\nSHRI NARENDRA